Internet Propaganda vs. The Truth: The "Evil" Illuminati

I know I am diving into rough waters on this topic because I've had some heated debates over it for quite some time. In this "information age" that we now find ourselves living in, we can access just about anything at the stroke of a keyboard, smartphone or tablet. Want to know what George Clooney's wife wore to their wedding reception? Google it! Did you see the video of (enter appropriate sport's figure) doing (enter hot topic of the minute)? YouTube it! Did you hear what Senator so and so said about Black people and welfare? Check you Facebook newsfeed! And last but not least, and easily one of the most talked about things amongst people who either like pop music or hate pop music and their stars and who are super duper conspiracy theorists, the "Who's down with the Illuminati" topic! From Jay Z, Beyoncé and pretty much anyone associated with them to President Obama, there is a vast supply of information out there (mostly on the Internet) that range from wild accusations to somewhat convincing arguments that "expose" certain individuals and their affiliation with this secret society. While there has been many books written throughout history regarding the Illuminati, it seems that the information we see nowadays is less about historical reference and more about the dark agendas and cultist practices of those associated with the group. While Presidents are often linked to this and other secret societies, President Obama is made out to be the evil usher of  a global government, part of the New World Order that is supposed to be the main agenda of the Illuminati. The actions and/ or supposed actions that he has been said to sign into law (from approving genetically modified foods to approving gun laws aimed at suppressing American citizens  to preserve his reign) are often pointed to as signs of his Illuminati agenda. Recording artists like the aforementioned Jay Z (whose use of symbolism, lyrical reference and influence make him "without a doubt" a sure fire member of the Illuminati to some) and actors and actresses in Hollywood are said to be part of the Illuminati's way of speeding up the pace of the inception of the New World Order by infiltrating the mainstream media.


Now, I want to make it clear that I am not discrediting the existence of the Illuminati or any other secret society. I do believe, as a group, they are very real. I believe they have a tremendous influence in government and in entertainment. I'll even go as far as to say that the people who are accused of secretly being high ranking members within the society could very well be affiliated with the group. I just find that the people who are pushing the propaganda on the Internet, saying that the Illuminati has a dark, secret agenda are promoting an agenda of their own. Propaganda is defined as "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view". While some of the information is based simply on tangible things and occurrences (like symbolism, terminology, song lyrics, etc.), a lot of it is misleading, or at the very least, sensationalized to capture the attention of the reader, viewer or listener (perfect example here: http://gothamist.com/2014/04/06/jay_z_wears_controversial_medallion.php. These are really just a bunch of generalizations and speculative thinking). Often, these articles and videos are from well intentioned, faith based individuals trying to warn others who may be unknowingly caught up in their fandom or support of their favorite celebrity. But there are many out there who are trying to use religion, politics and fear as the basis for their campaign to discredit or malign a particular person or group.


While rumors of the Illuminati and other secret societies have always been a part of trying to expose government secrets, I feel that it is not a coincidence that the information supposedly exposing the group has flowed freely and heavily during the presidency of our country's first non-white president. While accusations of the nations previous presidents being linked to secret societies were far from flattering, theories of devil worship and Satanic influence are being levied at Barack Obama and other high profile Black individuals linked to him at an outrageous clip.Then there are videos claiming that these artists are being possessed by demons during their performances, channeling those spirits and bring the masses that listen to them or attend their concerts under Satanic influence. Again, while one cannot truly say that such events are 100% impossible, all we have to reference these allegations are YouTube videos that cannot be 100% authenticated, song lyrics and clips from interviews that can easily be twisted and placed into a context to support whatever theory exists. Yes, it is true that Beyoncé has claimed to have a "split personality" that takes over when she performs. And yes, she has said that she kind of "blacks out" during her performances and often can't recall what happens while she's in character. While this could easily be attributed to some sort of possession, it can also be easily attributed to what many artists, athletes, musicians and the like refer to as "being in the zone" or being totally focused on their craft. Michael Jordan often spoke about feeling like there was another gear that he could summon at will when he was carving out one of the greatest careers in modern day basketball. Many performance artists, myself included when I'm performing spoken word or hip-hop, often say the person that they are outside of their craft is different than their persona on stage. And you can see from an artist like Jay Z or Nas or anyone who has achieved a certain level of success in the entertainment industry get caught up in the moment when tens of thousands of individuals are screaming their name or reciting their song lyrics. Jay has said he has fallen into a trance like state during these moments out of sheer awe of the said moment. So while the theories of possession and spiritual influence can tickle the ears of those looking for something to pin on these individuals being so successful that it has to be something other worldly that is responsible for it, you can also attribute it to their ability to excel at whatever it is that they do.


I want to expound on that thought further, and I will, but I also want to circle back to point I started with the link in the last paragraph. That article is full of speculative comment in regards to what the writer deemed to be clues to Jay Z's affiliation with the Illuminati. None of these are actual concrete facts. While the symbolism (or Jay's wearing completely different symbolism to supposedly "trick" us into believing he's really not part of the Illuminati) may be real, one thing that is never really spoken on is the possibility that maybe this is a clever marketing ploy by Jay Z to keep his name and brand out front. Because regardless of why people are talking about him, his wife and his daughter (even her name, Blue Ivy, is supposedly very Illuminati), they are talking about him and he has managed to remain relevant when many of his Hip-Hop peers have long seen their glory days passed. When you look at the individuals who are linked to this secret society, particularly the Black celebrities and politicians who are said to have a heavy influence on the youth in our country, they are said to have sold their soul to the Devil so that they can achieve their status. This, too, is an irresponsible twist on a religious ideology of "being a part of this world", where if you have not given of yourself to the Lord, or to Jesus or God in general, then you are of Satan's world. The way it is being made to seem, to me at least, is that if you have gained any level of success and you are not of the typical elite class (which for a better part of human history and even now is being a white American) then you have to be part of some wicked, dark society that just happens to also be ran by white people. So not only are these individuals not given credit for their natural abilities and desire to be the very best at what they do, they are essentially sellouts to those who look like them and support them.


It is on that note that I get back to the actual hard work and success of these individuals. The word Illuminati literally means 'enlightened' when you translate the word from it's original Latin form, illuminatus. When the group was originally formed they had pretty simplistic ideals, one being to oppose religious influence over public life and abuses of state power. In the context of this information, it is no wonder why Barack Obama has been a target of not only being associated with the Illuminati in a negative and dark aspect but also being associated with the Muslim faith and to be a proponent of science when it comes to the idea of traditional Christianity and creationism. And while the inclusion of others like Jay Z is mainly due to the success these individuals have attained in the entertainment industry, the influence these individuals have on the youth to be "free thinkers" (a term associated with the Illuminati that refers to the philosophical viewpoint of Freethought, which holds the notion that ideas regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic and reason instead of authority, tradition and dogmatic principles), can be viewed as a threat to the old ways our society was based on. Religion still has a very heavy hand in the way our government is run and many of the laws and principles our country was founded on were based on religious teaching. Christian values play a major role in the way a lot of our politicians and Supreme Court justices frame their interpretation of our Constitution. It's only logical that they would resist and look to discredit anything that would be viewed as alternative thinking on their ingrained beliefs and principles, especially if they feel like it is an attack on their way of life. While there are definitely arguments on both sides of the Obama divide, the truth of the matter is a lot of politicians and Americans opposed Obama from the very beginning, in part, because he ran on a platform that promoted a drastic change to the way politics are done in this country. The element that race brought to the equation created fodder that could be used to promote a simple yet effective smokescreen, a racial divide. This is effective, mainly, because it's an easy tool to use; most people who oppose Obama feel that Black people would typically side with him and use racism as an excuse for blind support in some cases. Throw the Satanic Illuminati cult reference out there, attach it to some high profile supporters of the President, and now you have a question of faith and spirituality that resonates deep within the Black culture. Feed that to impressionable  people, either young people or faith driven older people, and you have a recipe for opposition based on a higher power, God himself. While the scriptures talk about Satan often disguising himself as 'an angel of light' so as to mislead many into following him, the Illuminati references to political and pop culture celebrities make sense here as well. Illuminati also can be interpreted as "followers of the light", or in the case of those who cast this secret society in an evil light, "followers of the false light" or Satan himself.


According to history, the Illuminati, along with other secret societies, were outlawed in 1785 by the Bavarian ruler, Charles Theodore, with the full support of the Roman Catholic Church and were permanently disbanded. There is no evidence that they survived their suppression in 1785. That is not surprising because if the group wanted to remain in secret, they would have made sure to conceal their existence. So it would also not be surprising that organized religion would spearhead the campaign of promoting the group as an evil society bent on world domination. The individuals that are often linked to the Illuminati are of the elite, operating on the highest levels of their professions. So to cast these men and women as minions of Satan isn't hard, especially in the economic and social times that we live in. Barack Obama has been given most of the blame of why our economy and government is in the fragile shape that it's in, even though it was the policies and decisions made during the George W. Bush presidency that has shaped our current state of affairs. While the Bush family's Illuminati ties were often made as jokes about how bumbling George W. Bush was, Obama's association with the group depicts him as pretty much the harbinger of an apocalypse, the end of days, and the "The Great Destroyer", according to author David Limbaugh who is also the younger brother of radio talk show personality Rush Limbaugh (no surprise there).


As my blogs often do, this one has also centered around race and for good reason. While I am not saying that Obama, Jay Z and Beyoncé are being singled out as members of the Illuminati because they are black, much of the malicious press these individuals get is related to their supposed affiliation. Jay Z and Beyoncé, along with other artists they are associated with, have been able to get to a rarefied air in the entertainment industry that very few have attained, let alone Black artists. As influential as their white contemporaries are, there is very minimal association for them with the Illuminati, aside from the occasional Justin Bieber reference (which I think comes from an American dislike of his Canadian heritage, and the fact that he's a spoiled brat who is not as American as the Lindsey Lohan's of our great country). You don't hear Justin Timberlake being associated with the dark practices of a secret society. You see LeBron James flash a "three" sign after he nails a three pointer and because he's associated with Jay Z or he's been seen throwing up the pyramid symbol in homage to Jay Z's former Roc-A-Fella record label, he's said to be flashing Illuminati signs. Both Jay Z and Beyoncé have worn jewelry, clothing and have used images that have Illuminati symbols or references and this has been said to have been tell tale signs that they are definitely affiliated with the evil Illuminati. Seemingly insignificant things like Jay Z dropping the hyphen in his stage moniker and embracing veganism has been said to be Illuminati behavior. Even when these celebrities have ventured into causes to help and support others, like when they showed their support for Trayvon Martin, there was widespread speculation that this only occurred because Trayvon's father was an Illuminati Grand Master with ties to the Free Mason organization. Again, anything is possible. I just feel that if one can look at a situation and make claims as fact, one should also examine the flip side and just ask what is behind the implications of the claims. There is truth that can be proven without a shred of doubt. Then there is propaganda, which could be true. But instead of it being based on facts, it's based on the perceptions and subsequent reactions of those who will read or hear this information.


The point of all this, really, is just to express my personal opinions on the matter of the Illuminati and all the groups supposed members. I could be 100% wrong regarding this and I know at least one person who, as soon as this is posted, will have all sorts of evidence to back the claims that are out there regarding the Illuminati. While I respect the efforts individuals go through to prove conspiracy theories and expose secret social and government agendas, I feel like sometimes that effort is consumed (and in some cases, wasted) on one line of thought when other equally or more important information gets overlooked. To me, what millionaire celebrities, personalities and politicians do in their personal lives rank very low on my list of priorities, even if they are suspected of "devil worship". If millions of other people follow their lead, so be it. But I have my own path to follow.

Black Expectations: The Rules of Being Black in America

A Black father tells his Black son that it is important to understand that as Black men in this country, the rules are different for us. Everything that a Black man does in this country (along with Black women) is viewed through a different set of lenses than those used to view white men and women. So the Black father encourages his Black son to carry himself in a respectable manner so as not to be grouped in with the crowd that could be considered threatening. This would include the way the Black son dresses, the way he talks and walks, the way he interacts with people in positions of authority (ESPECIALLY with the police), the way he treats others, the way he represents himself. I'm sure every well intentioned and well intended father of any nationality has similar conversations with their sons, but within the Black community, this conversation is for one thing and one thing only. To ensure that the Black father will not have to experience what so many Black families as of late have experienced, their Black sons not making it back home alive.

We all know the names, we all know the situations and we all know what the outcomes have been or will be. We've all heard the responses and the explanations, we've seen support on both sides, we've seen peaceful and violent reactions. We've heard opinions from people directly affected and opinions from those just weighing in on a subject they cannot relate to. There have been accusations of false reporting, sensationalizing and purposefully causing racial tension and division to promote a political agenda of some sort. We've seen and heard the comparisons of all the situations where an unarmed Black man or teen was shot and killed by an overly aggressive police officer or other individual and we've seen the smear campaigns in an attempt to justify what occurred. We know all of these things, all too well.

But we are still left with the same questions. What does a Black father, mother, son or daughter, uncle, aunt, cousin, nephew or niece do when the rules for living and being Black in America no longer apply? During the Jim Crow era in the South and even during that same time period in the North, it could have meant life or death or serious physical harm if a Black person ever challenged a white person, let alone one in a position of authority. It seems that today, yes today in 2014, we are reliving those times. You hear about or see videos where a young white person gets pulled over and challenges the requests of an officer and at the end of the video it says "know your rights". But as a Black person, you KNOW that the situation changes DRASTICALLY if the driver is a Black person. I've been told by a white police officer during one particular confrontation where I called out the practices that I've seen in my own neighborhood that "in the state of South Carolina the law states that you must obey the requests of a police officer", which I took as a backhanded (or maybe not so backhanded) way of saying "Nigger, when a white officer in the South tells you to do something, you do it!". We've heard reports of veteran white police officers stating that if a person doesn't want to get shot, then you "shut up and do what the officer tells you to do, even if you feel like your rights are being violated". These are trained law enforcement officials who are basically saying that they have the right to shoot you if they feel like you are challenging their authority. This is NOT an exaggeration.

The Michael Brown/ Ferguson, Missouri and the Eric Garner/ NYPD cases point to a very disturbing trend that is not really a new thing when it comes to the tension between minorities and law enforcement. In both cases, the lack of value of life that the police officers in question displayed for both victims is concerning. Eric Garner died on a Staten Island sidewalk after police choke dragged him to the ground. Before he died, during and after he was being choked, he repeatedly told the officers he could not breathe. Those officers, once they "subdued" him, didn't bother to check to see if he was alive. His body, once he passed, was left on that sidewalk for several hours. EMT's were not called right away. In the case of Michael Brown, after Darren Wilson shot him a reported six times, police officers left his body in the street for about four hours. Whether or not Brown could have been helped after the shooting is irrelevant. The fact that his corpse was left in the middle of the street, exactly like Garner's, shows the apparent disregard the officers had for these individuals lives, if the initial incidents themselves didn't show that in the beginning. In the wake of the Brown shooting, much like what we saw occur after the Trayvon Martin shooting with George Zimmerman, there has been an overwhelming support for the officer who shot Brown. One report states that supporters have raised over $350,000 for Wilson while the Brown's are left to bury their son. Wilson's supporters say he was just doing his job and ensuring that he made it home safely. Brown, on the other hand, was not so lucky.

Police officers have a dangerous job, obviously. I spoke with a Black police officer who offered a very unique perspective on this situation. He could sympathize with both sides. He spoke of the training officers receive and the threat that an officer may feel he is under. He also spoke of the job being of the high stress variety. As an officer, he said it is his job to be one step ahead of whomever he may confront. He said that since Brown was unarmed, then Wilson should have opted to use his Taser if he felt that Michael Brown posed a threat. In a situation where a offender may have a weapon, the officer said they are trained to shoot twice to the body and once to the head when they have assessed that they are under a threat. This all has to be done in a split second in some cases. Police officers are trained to use deadly force WHEN necessary, not if. Yes, there are times when an officer has to kill a suspect because the officer's life or the lives of others may be in danger. Police officers are human, so at times mistakes will be made and they should be held accountable for those mistakes. But when you look at the way suspects were handled in the several mass shootings we've seen over the last few years, where the suspects where white, we have seen how dangerous situations are SUPPOSED to be handled. Most of these suspects will see their day in court and get a chance to fight the charges against them. Most police officers handle these situations as they were trained to do. But too many do not. Eric Garner, who was accused of selling illegal cigarettes, posed no threat at all to the police on the scene so violent force of any sort was not necessary. The cop who initially confronted Garner felt like he was not being respected properly as an officer of the law. His fellow officers agreed and proceeded to subdue their 'suspect' by any means that they felt were necessary, which included by illegal chokehold. Michael Brown, who at the time of the shooting was not a suspect whatsoever and was not accused of or being investigated for ANYTHING except for walking in the middle of the street, will not get a chance to tell his version of the story. Is it a coincidence that the Black men in these instances were shot and killed (Brown) or assaulted and died as a result (Garner), although they posed no threat, while some white males who have committed mass murders in some cases were spared their lives? I don't even remotely think so. Is it a coincidence that Darren Wilson is being shown substantial emotional and financial support while those supporting the Browns are accused of sensationalizing this situation and pulling the race card, all while the Browns bear the burden of losing a son? Is it a coincidence that whenever a situation like this occurs, there is always a calculated smear campaign put into play to paint the VICTIM as a thug or criminal so as to influence the public opinion and that public takes that lead and runs with it aiming to 'educate' the supporters of the victim? Is it a coincidence that this NEVER happens when talking about a white offender, regardless of the level of their crime? Don't believe me?

What was the back story that was reported on the Aurora, Colorado movie theatre shooter, James Holmes? Scholarship student, graduated with highest honors with a bachelors degree in neuroscience with no record of contact with local or campus police, other than a lone speeding ticket in 2011. It was deemed necessary for those facts to be reported. Oh, and the speculation that he suffers from some sort of mental illness and that he was experiencing a psychotic episode when he threw tear gas canisters into the theatre and opened fire, killing 12 people. Right now his lawyers are further delaying his trial on claims of Holmes' being mentally insane. Even the Sandy Hook elementary school shooter, who killed himself afterward, was painted as a victim of mental illness, said to have had Asperger's disease along with possibly being autistic. That goes without mentioning the fact that the entire Sandy Hook shooting has been labeled as a political ploy, even a hoax, to push Obama's agenda on gun reform. Think about some of history's most famous serial killers and the way they are described. The story often starts with humble beginnings and often leads to, in many cases, somewhat of an admiration, almost like geniuses due to the nature of the way they conducted their killings and how they evaded authorities. The back story of Michael Brown? He "was no angel" (after he was said to be relaying a sort of religious experience to his father, according to this New York Times article by John Eligon http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/25/us/michael-brown-spent-last-weeks-grappling-with-lifes-mysteries.html) and that he had gotten into "at least one scuffle with a neighbor". His back story also includes "dabbling in alcohol and drugs" and it mentions the video that supposedly shows Brown stealing a box of $1 cigars from a nearby convenience store and shoving the clerk into display case. It mentions he had just gotten into rapping and his lyrics were at times vulgar. It was deemed necessary to report those things. However, none of this justifies Brown being murdered. Even without all the facts, this type of reporting is very transparent in its attempt to paint Brown as an individual who probably gave Wilson a reason to shoot and kill him. It's very irresponsible.

I read another article today with the headline 'There's No Such Thing as Black America' (see here:  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/27/there-s-no-such-thing-as-black-america.html). As good as that sounds, it's a ridiculous thought. I understand where the writer, Ron Christie, is coming from but Black America does exist, as does white and Hispanic America, as does LBGT America, etc. If there was no separation, then the need for dialogue on equality wouldn't be such a hot topic. Darren Wilson isn't being called a racist because he shot and killed and unarmed black teen. The protests and riots aren't about that. They are about Black and white America actually being separate, held to a different set of rules when it comes to the value of existence and life. It took the rioting out in Ferguson to bring attention to what had been going on out there for decades, racial tension between a majority Black community and it's majority white police force. Often when it comes to racial equality amongst the Black and white demographic, resistance by way of violence or the fear of it is the only thing that brings attention to the matter. Black people are often criticized when this occurs, as we should be because rioting and looting and destroying one's own neighborhood and businesses accomplishes nothing. Nothing except awareness from others that something wrong is going on. Had the Ferguson community not reacted the way they did, with peaceful protests that resulted in a militarized standoff with local authorities that led to some violence, then it is a good possibility that we may have never even heard about anything that happened out there. A large part of the reason why it has become national news, along with the Martin, Davis and Garner cases and cases like theirs, is that the subject of race has been injected into the story.  That's sexy, it's ratings, it gets people riled up. But it is also the reality of the world we live in. As much as one would like to take race out of the equation, it will always be there because we as a people, as a society, will keep it there. The Black police officer that I mentioned above said the only thing that will keep race from being an issue in cases like this is if we stop talking so much about it. I agree to a certain extent, that if we stop just making everything a Black versus white thing maybe some progress can be made. But as a society, we agreed, that will never happen. There will always be a group or groups of individuals who feel they are better or above others, who feel they are entitled, on both sides of the racial divide. Both parties, citizens and individuals in positions of authority or law enforcement have to honestly have accountability for their actions. I don't know if Darren Wilson acted with or without accountability and I don't know if Michael Brown acted with or without accountability. All I know is this is a reoccurring situation and at some point it has to stop. Sooner rather than later.

A white father doesn't have to go over the rules with his white sons the way Black fathers have to. If you line up 5 teenagers, 4 white and one Black but all dressed the same with sagging jeans, oversized ball caps, jewelry and tattoos and ask a white suburban housewife which one is likely to have criminal record, I'd bet money that she would assume the Black kid did. Put Darren Wilson's picture up next to Michael Brown's and ask that same white suburban housewife, with no knowledge of who those men are, who she thought had ever killed someone, it's a safe bet to say she'd pick the Black guy over the white guy more times than not. I say this confidently because we see it happen all the time. Black males are often judged by the way they look and carry themselves and can even be judged unfavorably in the company of white males who look just like them, either it be in a suit or in street clothes. Trayvon Martin, even though he was not killed by a white man but had his actions judged based on his ethnicity and the way he was portrayed by the defense, was essentially posthumously tried in his own murder case. While Jordan Davis' case saw his murderer convicted, there was still an effort to justify the action of a white male who took the law into his own hands over something as insignificant as loud rap music. He claimed there had been a gun pointed at him and so he acted in self defense, shooting multiple times into a vehicle as it drove off, filled with young Black men. Fortunately for Davis, there was nothing to use against him in a smear campaign. Apparently, his father had the 'rules' talk with him and he followed those rules pretty closely. But he still ended up dead way too early.

So what does a Black family do when the rules of being Black in, yes, a Black and white America unfortunately, no longer apply? All they can do is pray that there sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles and cousins make it home safely, just like families of police officers do everyday. If they don't make it home, then  the families will then have to pray for justice instead.

"They did it, again!" Eric Garner and the lame NYPD

When I first saw the video of Eric Garner being subdued by NYPD officers using the infamous and banned choke hold, which he later died from, I wasn't shocked that this had happened. The NYPD, after all, aren't known to be without controversy. But it wasn't until I read and article about Spike Lee splicing footage of Eric Garner and a scene from his movie Do The Right Thing , where police used a choke hold to subdue the character Radio Raheem, that I realized why. This scene was based on the 1983 killing of graffiti artist Michael Stewart, who witnesses said was killed after officers administered a choke hold to subdue him. In the movie, while Raheem is being choked and is eventually killed, someone in the crowd says: "They did it again! Just like Michael Stewart!"

Aside from the fact that the tactics used in Eric Garner's arrest were banned in 1993, the reasoning that Eric Garner did not die from the choke hold ranges from ridiculous to insane. There have been reports that the choke hold wasn't an "actual choke hold" because Eric Garner was too tall and too big for the officer to get his elbow across Garner's neck to apply it to where the officer could actually choke him. Really? In the video, you can actually see the officer hanging off of Eric Garner's back. I don't know about you, but if someone shorter than me  has their arm around my neck and hangs from there, I'm pretty sure they're going to choke me in some way.

Other reports mention that Garner had asthma, and that had more to do with his subsequent cardiac arrest and death than a "supposed" choke hold did. One report even went as far to say that Garner's apparent pleas of not being able to breathe could not have been made if someone was choking him. I have to admit, these responses to this incident are, well, fucking amazing. The thought that went into these rebuttals are scholarly at best. I mean, hey, you punch a guy in his face, break his nose and a bone happens to puncture his brain and kills him, you're not responsible for that, are you? Could a defense be that you weren't strong enough to hit someone that hard or that you were too short to actually make that much of an impact? I guess it would depend on who you actually were and who your victim was.

This is what I saw. Eric Garner, a big man indeed, was choked and tackled to the ground by at least 3 or 4 officers. Yes, one officer dragged him to the ground with that choke hold, hanging off of his back. While on the ground, an officer is seen pushing Garner's face into the concrete sidewalk. During the scuffle, while he is being handcuffed, you can hear him repeatedly say: "I can' t breathe!" This is where every officer that was on the scene failed miserably. There is no way to spin this to where every officer there is not accountable, from the one who choke dragged him to the ground, to the one who held his face pressed down into the concrete, to those who watched it all happen. The defense of, "well, he had asthma and he was a large man" doesn't stand at all. To say he died from cardiac arrest and not from the choke hold is stupid.

It has been reported that Eric Garner had earlier been involved in an altercation that he was trying to break up. When police approached him, they confronted him in regards to selling illegal cigarettes. The video picks up conversation that Garner was having with the officers, with him stating that he was constantly harassed by officers on a regular basis. "Every time you see me you want to mess with me. I’m tired of it. It stops today!” he yelled (Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/staten-island-man-dies-puts-choke-hold-article-1.1871486#ixzz38PBJCykD). When Gardner refused to put his hands behind his back after officers repeatedly asked him to, that's when the plain clothes officer jumped him. Some have concluded that if Gardner had just cooperated with officers, then none of this would have happened. As a native New Yorker, who has had a number of run ins with the police there, I understand that cooperating with police officers, as a Black man, is not always the end all be all solution. It was apparent that Garner had his own previous run ins with the NYPD and he felt it was necessary to not put up with it that day. So it would seem to me that the lesser of two evils for Garner that day was to make a stand. As trained officers the way they chose to handle this situation was wrong and would have still been wrong even if Eric Garner not died. The bottom line is, these officers felt like Garner was not yielding to there authority and they felt the need to let Gardner know "who was in charge". In the article link above, it is reported that the officer who choked Garner looked right into the camera that the witness was carrying and said: "This had nothing to do with the fight, this had something to do with something else" and walked away. So it seems that the intentions and motive behind this attack, and yes, that is what this is, were ulterior. Even the EMS workers who responded to the scene didn't seem to act properly.

The sad thing is, once again when discussing the death of a Black man by the hands of someone who didn't look like them or were representing some form of authority, we are only left to speculate why this event happened. The knee jerk reaction is two sided, it's race related and it's not. In New York, there is a common distrust between police officers and the inner city public, made up mostly of minorities. People on the outside looking in attribute this, among young people for the most part, as a result of the hip-hop culture and it's advertised disdain for police. I find that rather insulting, especially when most Black men, at some point in their lives in any major city in this country, has had at least one unpleasant experience with a police officer, based solely on the color of his skin. In New York, the NYPD has a very long history of inappropriate interaction with minorities, with the recent stop and frisk program and the Sean Bell incident in 2006 being the freshest and most high profile incidents in our minds. And there a hundreds, if not thousands of incidents that go unreported. Think about this, we only know about this incident with Eric Garner because someone had enough courage to film it and because Eric Garner was killed. Had he survived, would it have even made the news? How many other incidents happened that day that we know nothing about? How many have happened since?

NYPD commissioner Bill Bratton said that the entire 35,000 member force of police will undergo a retraining in the wake of Garner's death. But Rev. Al Sharpton, speaking at Garner's funeral in Brooklyn, said this, which puts the training of police into perspective and the human decency we all should have in the forefront: "The choke hold is illegal. But even if you lost your training memory, a man in your arm saying ‘I can’t breathe’ … when does your decency kick in? When does your morality kick in?” Training is not in question here, it is the motives of those police officers and their lack of human decency to acknowledge that a man that they had just choked to the ground lay there dying and they didn't care.

I'm through asking "why?" because I already know the answer. I've asked "why?" in this blog so many times but I'm through asking. Rev. Sharpton told those who had gathered at Eric Garner's funeral that "we should not act as though we should be here tonight. This is an occasion that should not have happened." He continued by strongly suggesting what the real problem is and what the solution should be. "Let’s not play games with this one." he said. "You don’t need no training to stop choking a man saying 'I can’t breathe'. You don’t need no cultural orientation to stop choking a man saying 'I can’t breathe'. You need to be prosecuted.” And this is where the problem lies. In so many cases, officers that engage in this type of behavior are hardly ever prosecuted like they would be if the tables had been reversed, or if they had not been officers. The NYPD is notorious for misconduct and cover ups when it comes to cases like this, so their officers act without consideration for whatever consequences may come down. I'm pretty sure that if the officer who choke dragged Garner down to the ground thought he would be held accountable if something bad happened, he may have acted differently. The same goes for the officers that shot Sean Bell and Amadou Diallo. Had it not been for the fact that Abner Louima survived his police brutality ordeal with the NYPD in 1997and was able to testify against those officers, Justin Volpe and Charles Schwarz might be free men today. The senseless brutality that the NYPD is known for breeds a culture of corruption and cover up with no sense of accountability and, seemingly, no sign of slowing up. Under former mayors, most notably Rudolph Guliani, the city feigned to care about the growing distrust between the NYPD and the inner city citizens of New York, but nothing was ever done. Under Mayor Bloomberg, arguably one of the better mayors in recent history on an economic level, police brutality cases weren't as prevalent but misconduct and police harassment still prevailed, especially under the Stop and Frisk program and the Sean Bell killing that happened on his watch. So it would seem that, even under new mayor Bil de Blasio, these kind of incidents are as much a part of the NYPD as their uniform. It's about power and control. The fact that Eric Garner refused to be harassed on that particular day, after he was supposedly breaking up a fight, the fact that he couldn't be controlled by four "trained" officers without a physical altercation, ultimately cost him his life. Sadly, he was not the first and he will not be the last.

But what can we do, the public? What can we do to stop the needless viloent confrontations that happen so often when it comes to police officers and minorities in, not just New York City, but everywhere? It's tough to admit but it seems like there isn't much that can be done. When Trayvon Martin was killed, there were rallies across the country. Why can't that same thing happen again? I'm pretty sure Rev. Al Sharpton has something planned but this should be something that occurs on a national level. Police brutality and harassment exists in every city, usually in low income and urban areas. Even here in Greenville, SC, I've witnessed police unecessarily stops drivers in my own neighborhood for going around speed bumps, just to be surrounded by multiple officers and held for almost an hour, often right in front of my home. I've been pulled over numerous times. surrounded by 3 or 4 or 5 police cruisers, just to be told later that my license plate light was out. I'm not saying by any means that all police officers harass people needlessly, but it occurs too often. I've been questioned about the vehicle I was driving, where I was going or coming from, asked if I was transporting drugs, soliciting prostitutes when I have been in the car with a female, etc.. Too many times instances like these ends up with a unecessary death of either the citizen or officer, due to the response of the individual who feels like he or she is being unduely harassed. I've been eye to eye with an officer who told me that it was the law that I do whatever it is that an officer tells me to do, without any response back. In the South, that is a good 'ol boy mentality that is used to intimidate individuals who don't know the law or their rights. As a people, we need to care more and do more, myself included. This is a problem that affects everyone nationwide and it should be addressed every time we hear about it. As long as it seems that the communities where these events happen and communites nationwide like them have accepted this type of behavior as a by product of living with corrupt police and law enforcement, then it will remain a norm. The people have to unite and stand up for themselves and each other.

Side note: In the days since this incident was first reported, what has permeated the news has been more and more justification for the police's actions and more and more ridiculous posturing by those in the media who have been entrusted to report the news, not their opinion. On Fox News Sunday, there was a segment that said the outrage of those who feel like Eric Garner was needlessly assaulted and killed is prioritizing the criminals rights over the job of law enforcement officers.

Money Over Rings: 'Did 'Melo and the Knicks Make the Right Choice?

LeBron James is going back to the city where it all began for him. Hate it or love it, you have to admit that watching him next season will be more exciting that it would have been to watch him toil away in Miami for another 2 years or so with an aging core of superstars and role players. And while his exit paved the way for Chris Bosh to cash in, it also paved the way for Carmelo Anthony to do the same. It was rumored that 'Melo had narrowed his options down to two teams; the currently "rebuilding" Knicks team he lobbied to get traded out of Denver for, and the team's former 90's nemesis, the Chicago Bulls. As a long time Knicks fan, (and for that period of time in the 90's, a Bulls hater) that was the last team that I wanted to see Anthony go to if he left NY. Why? For one thing, I love Carmelo's game. Whether he had re-signed with the Knicks or not, I would have still been a fan. Secondly, aside from teaming up with Dwight Howard and James Harden in Houston (another 90's Knicks nemesis), Anthony's chances to compete for a championship would have been about the same in Chicago as they would be if he stayed with the Knicks. He'd still be playing in the weak Eastern Conference that still has LeBron James, just like in the 90's, when the Knicks had to contend with Michael Jordan. If 'Melo had gone to Houston, his chances for a crack at a championship would have increased greatly, due to the fact that Houston is primed for a championship run and that they wouldn't see LeBron in the playoffs until the Finals, where James is favored to return but, realistically, not likely to do this year (even though Vegas has his Cav's as 4-1 favorites to). Again, as a fan of Anthony and his game, I'd hate to seem him leave the Knicks just to toil around for another 3-5 years without a legitimate chance to play for a ring.

Does he have a good chance to compete for that elusive championship in New York? As of right now, the truth is no. The Knicks are in flux, Phil Jackson still has to be creative this year in an effort for the team to at least be competitive this upcoming season and the Knicks need at least one other free agent star player that the team can look to pair up with Anthony. That opportunity probably will not come until the 2015-16 season. So at the very least, 'Melo has a lame duck season coming up that, more than likely, won't see him in the NBA Finals. The Knicks have reportedly offered him a max deal with some "wiggle room" on the front end that should allow them some cap space to go after a marquee free agent in 2015 and to retool the current roster a little bit this year (it has been rescently reported that Anthony's contract is for $124 mil over the next 5 years). Jackson has already moved Tyson Chandler and Raymond Felton to Dallas for cap relief, acquired point guard Jose Calderon and made good use of their draft picks. So for right now, things seem to be moving in the right direction.

But did 'Melo make the right move? Financially, he definitely did. While he didn't sign for the full max of $129 million, the deal he did sign for was more than any other team could have offered him. Chicago could only offer a first year salary of $17 million, and that would have required some pretty nifty manuevering by Chicago's front office to bring him in. A sign and trade would have also been neccessary, but the Knicks wanted no part of that since it probably would have meant taking on Carlos Boozer's expiring contract and possibly another player with a contract that extends past the 2015 season. Also, the uncertainty surrounding Derrick Rose's return from a second major injury didn't provide enough certainty for Carmelo to take less money to try and chase a championship. The Houston Rockets seemed enticing enough for Anthony but the chances of them making the right moves to be in a position to offer the free agent forward a decent enough contract were slim at best. Plus, they had already seemed to move on to try to aquire the Miami Heat's Chris Bosh, who ultimately re-signed with the team.The Lakers made an aggressive push, offering Anthony a max deal of four years and $96 million. But with an aging and rehabbing Kobe Bryant and the possibility of losing Pau Gasol in free agency (which they evetually did, to Chicago, nonetheless), LA seemed like more of a pipe dream at contention than staying with NY would have been. So 'Melo decided on financial stability and Phil Jackson. His championship options weren't any better anywhere else where it was realistic for him to sign, now or in the immeadiate future.

What about the Knicks? Both Anthony and Phil Jackson both expressed the importance of making sure the Knicks were financially able to be players in free agency during the 2015 offseason. Carmelo first stated back in February that he'd be willing to take less money if that meant that Jackson and the Knicks' historically inept front office would use the resources to structure a competitive team around him. Jackson repeatedly made reference to that over the course of the past few months and that, reportedly, irked Anthony to the point where it became a part of his decision making process on whether or not he should stay in New York. The Knicks were said to have offered 'Melo and his representatives 5 different options with the max 5 year $129 option being one of them. Anthony did end up taking a little less money, so it seems that on the money side, the Knicks are trying to do what they said they wanted to do. On the basketball side, though, there are still more questions. Anthony's game, although increasingly more efficient through last season with him taking up more time at the 4 position, is of the heavy isolation variety. Carmelo is an excellent creator off the dribble, which is a necessary dynamic during critical moments, especially during the post season. He's also been pretty effective in pick and roll situations and very efficient on catch and shoot plays. The knock on him, though, has been whether or not he could thrive in the triangle offense that 1st time head coach Derek Fisher will undoubtedly run, at the behest of Jackson. In some circles it has been said that maybe the best thing for the Knicks would have been to let Carmelo sign with another team, let Fisher get his feet wet coaching a team with low expectations this upcoming season and then shoot for the stars on a big time free agent in 2015. That way, they would free up an enormous amount of cap space and could start from scratch and build a contender from the ground up. The only problem there is the Knicks would not have had an attractive star to lure potential free agents to the Big Apple, sort of the way they used Amar'e Stoudemire when they signed him to an unisured $100 million contract back in 2010. With Anthony locked up for the next 5 years, they have their star and they are banking on him being enough to attract the likes of Kevin Durant and possibly Kevin Love and/ or Rajon Rondo if they are still available (which, as of late, it seems like Love is headed to team up with LeBron in Clelveland).

The truth of the matter is both Carmelo Anthony and the Knicks really only had one option, and that was each other. Carmelo forced his way here and the Knicks represent the best case scenario for him and his legacy. If he's able to win here, he'll be the superstar that ended the Knicks 41 year championship drought and he will forever be remembered and revered for it. The Knicks were the only team that could make any type of guarantee, albiet a monetary one. If he'd taken less money to sign with another team, he may have gone to an instant contender but would have been the scapegoat  if that team didn't at least reach the Finals. In New York, all he had to do is sign the dotted line and then leave the rest up to Phil. If in the end it doesn't work out, all the blame won't fall on him. As far as the Knicks and Phil Jackson goes, they NEEDED Anthony to re-sign. Anytime you have a legendary scorer like 'Melo on your team, you have to go through whatever is needed to keep him. If he bolts, then you go from there. But if you keep him, then you have to give him the team mates needed to make him successful.

The Knicks skirted danger a bit by offering the max to Carmelo and then structuring a semi max deal to where the bulk of the money comes on the back end. While Phil is a first time executive and has already seen that the 'aura' that he carries with him isn't enough to convinvce even the likes of Steve Kerr (??!!!) to buy into what he's selling, he still is Phil Jackson, holder of 11 Championship rings as a coach. He knows talent and he knows winning. In the end, that's probably why Carmelo stayed. He had to give Phil a chance to make him a winner. While in the end, the Knicks may not send Carmelo and Phil down the Canyon of Heroes like New York legends Derek Jeter, Joe Torre, Mark Messier and Mike Richter or the other New York champions that have had their day, they have a chance to take a good shot at it. It is what it is for the Knicks, as it has always been. They have Anthony as their guy on the court and Phil Jackson as their guy in the front office. The choice was simple to stay together and they did. Whatever comes of it, they will be in it together. As long as James Dolan stays out of they way, this should be a fun ride.

LeBron James...back to Cleveland???!!!!

I must begin this blog by saying LeBron James is NOT a SELLOUT!!! I say this because this is the term that has been thrown around by some people who feel exactly the way I felt when I heard the speculation that King James might possibly be considering going back to the team that he scorned, and to the owner and fans that treated him as a runaway slave.

Some sports writers, like Jason Whitlock (who wrote this article http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/11199270/whitlock-lebron-james-pride-not-most-important-factor) felt like LeBron shouldn't let pride get in the way of him returning to his hometown, in spite of what Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert wrote about him when he left for the Miami Heat in 2010. Others, like J.A. Adande (who wrote this article http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/11194890/how-lebron-james-play-dan-gilbert) felt like James would and should have had a hard time going back to work for the owner who called him "a coward" for leaving an inept franchise who really didn't appreciate what they had in the basketball talent that is LeBron James. As I am not a sports writer, I do not have the access that these men have to that world. But I will say this: they are both right.

But it doesn't matter that one person says LeBron should consider power and progress over pride while another questions why going back to Cleveland is even on LeBron's mind. What matters is that LeBron made this decision because he felt it was best for him and his family. He will, reportedly, take less money than Chris Bosh's 5 years and $118 million (James' contract will be for just 2 years and $42 million but will be re-negotiated after the current collective bargaining agreement expires). He will be coming into a situation that is a little bit better than the situation he left Cleveland for the first time and potentially better than what he was facing if he stayed in Miami. Las Vegas has Cleveland being 4-1 favorites to reach the NBA finals next season. So it is safe to say that when it comes to basketball, Cleveland seems to be in pretty good shape on paper now that they have an older and wiser LeBron James back in a Cavaliers jersey.

LeBron said his reasons for going back to the city he started in and then dissed ('The Decision' led to fans burning his jersey and to Dan Gilbert writer a scathing open letter to James that was recently removed from the Cav's website) were bigger than basketball. He thought about his wife being pregnant with their third child and how it would be to raise his family in his hometown of Akron, OH. He thought about the things he had started in that community before he moved on to Miami. He said that he wanted to be an example to the kids of Northeast Ohio of being able to come from the same streets that he came from and be a success. He wanted to be like other successful individuals who put their money back into the communities from which they came. He said he knew he'd return to Cleveland someday to finish his career. The fact that all this is happening after just four years and two championships in Miami shows just what type of person LeBron is and how much he has matured since he left. Many sportswriters have said that James' decision to leave Cleveland in the first place was because he may not have been ready for or may not have wanted the responsibility of carrying a franchise at such a young age. In his letter announcing his return (http://www.si.com/nba/2014/07/11/lebron-james-cleveland-cavaliers), LeBron said that he's ready to lead and mentor the youg supporting cast that he will now be playing with. With experiencing what it takes to win a championship, he feels he has something to impart to to his new team mates that he didn't have the opportunity to impart to his Miami counterparts. He said Miami "already knew that feeling" of winning championships and that he wanted to bring that feeling to Cleveland, who hasn't had a major sports championship since the Cleveland Browns won the, pre Super Bowl era, NFL Championship in 1964. So LeBron, after getting his rings, has what he feels is a bigger challenge ahead of him. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who disagrees with that notion. But I feel like, when it comes to the game of basketball, LeBron may be trying to carve his own niche. Being compared to Micheal Jordan is usually a case of who has more rings. The comparisons don't stop there. Jordan has never lost in the NBA Finals. LeBron has lost twice. Jordan three-peated twice and could have possibly won six or more championships in a row had he not retired for one season and spent the next getting back into championship shape. So while LeBron cannot stack up against Jordan in those areas, he may end up doing something greater than his childhood idol never did. One championship in Cleveland may be the trump card that pushes James past Jordan when it comes individual accomplishments. Maybe it won't. But James' legacy will be set apart, in that along with all his statistical accomplishments, he'll have 'franchise savior' added to his profile. And he would have done so in the place where he grew up.

We tend to place a heavy burden on our professional athletes. In the 90's many fans criticized Micheal Jordan because he avoided speaking out about political and social issues. Jordan felt like it wasn't his place to speak on matters that affected him marginally because of who he was and his financial status. Today's players are more outspoken and their views, positive or negative, are dispensed quickly through social media. James was at the forefront of the labor dispute during the 2011 NBA lockout when owners wanted to limit superstar players ability to align themselves together to chase championships. He joined his teammates in silent protest when they posed for a team photograph wearing hoodies in support of Trayvon Martin, the Florida teenager who was gunned down by George Zimmerman on his way home from the store. James said he felt obligated to take a stand on that matter because he has two young boys of his own. He spoke out loudly against Donald Sterling when his views were made public, saying that the league had no place for people like Donald Sterling. It was even rumored that he was ready to lead a league wide boycott during this year's playoffs if the league didn't act swiftly enough in handling the case (the rumor was later proven to be just that). So it's easy to see why many of us were shocked when James decided to leave what seemed to be a sure thing in contending for a championship with the Heat for redemption with his hometown Cavs. But as the smoke has cleared and with seeing how James handled what is being dubbed 'The Decision 2.0, I understand a little better why he's going back. Sometimes a person's own goals are bigger than the conduit in which those goals are attained. Sometimes, an individual has to overlook things in order to see the big picture. One of my favorite quotes of all time, from the movie Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." In this case, LeBron James feels like the needs of his family, the fans of the Cavaliers and the youth of the area he grew up in, outweigh any personal needs, feelings or accomplishments that he may have on the court. And that truly is admirable.

While guys like Carmelo Anthony weigh money over championships (and get criticized for it, regardless of the options laid before them, but I will get to that in my very next blog!), LeBron is a global icon with the opportunity to become bigger than the sport that has made him famous. While other athletes have been able to take advantage of playing in college and developing the friendships and bonds that come with that experience, James has had to find different ways to balance out his basketball playing career. He brought his high school team mates along with him, employing them in his LRMR Management company, most notably his agent Rich Paul and his business manager, Maverick Carter. He took his opportunity in Miami and forged lifelong bonds with Chris Bosh and Dwayne Wade. He likened that experience to the college life he never had. Now, it seems, is LeBron's time to be, not just the best player in the NBA, but also the role model and mentor he feels like he is now ready to be. With his new sidekicks Kyrie Irving and, for now, fellow #1 draft pick Adrew Wiggins, LeBron is ready to show the NBA and the fans of Cleveland what they didn't get a chance to see the first time around. A more mature, seasoned and most importantly, better equipped LeBron James put the Cavs on his back and carry them to the NBA promised land, with a little bit more help. If he can do that, then when the greats of the game are mentioned, King James will be mentioned separately and alone, distinctly and without reservation, as the best in his own right.

Celebrating Illmatic and Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) 20 Years Later

Before I get started, I want everyone to know that this is not going to be a line for line, verse by verse analysis of two of the greatest Hip-Hop Albums of all time. With that being said, it's time to celebrate!!!

Let's be honest here, people. 1993-94 represents the best era of Hip-Hop. ?uestlove, front man of the legendary Roots, said that in 1993, when he heard The Wu-Tang Clan's debut album Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers), that it was "the greatest day ever". Many of Hip-Hop's greatest MC's and producers look at Nas' debut Illmatic as the bar for every MC that ever touched a mic after that. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone that loves Hip-Hop to disagree with those sentiments of both albums.

If you would've asked be back then, when I was 13 years old, how do I think these albums would be viewed 20 years later, I probably would've said something like "they won't ever get their proper due." Funny thing is, that would not have been based on what I thought about the albums but on how I thought the culture was viewed. To be honest with you, I didn't even realize the impact these albums had on me until I heard Raekwon and Ghostface Killah spit fire with the rest of the Clan on Only Built for Cuban Linx in 1996. On the track 'Verbal Intercourse', Nas lends a hand to his Shaolin Island counterparts, opening up with "Through the lights, cameras and action, glamour glitters and gold/ I unfold the scroll, plant seeds to stampede the globe...". It was then that I realized, Nas was probably the greatest MC of my generation and Wu Tang was the greatest Hip-Hop crew ever. Looking back, I had no idea, then, how these two albums would impact me or the culture I've grown to love.

Simply put, no other debut albums have had the initial impact that these two have had (if I had to pick a second, it would be Kendrick Lamar's debut Good Kid, M.A.A.D City). And I feel like there has not been a better solo debut than Illmatic or group debut than Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers), which introduced a gritty, raw and in your face sound that spawned producer RZA's trademark style. It also introduced the world to nine, count them, nine different MC's at the top of their lyrical games. That feat, in and of itself, is remarkable and probably will never be repeated. Illmatic, arguably, is the most influential album in Hip-Hop. Not only did it feature Nas dropping some of the illest verses ever heard then and since, it featured probably the greatest lineup of producers at that time contributing the greatest compilation of beats ever for a debut album. Nas' lyrics left no listener wanting, and the accompanying tracks enhanced those vocals even further. Illmatic was a look into the life of a young Black kid from one of the most notorious housing projects in the United States, let alone Queens, New York. Queensbridge Projects was the backdrop to the canvas that was Illmatic, and the album became sort of a holy grail to enthusiasts of Hip-Hop and those who could relate to what the young man was talking about. Nas delivered this commentary of sorts like he was sitting on a bench on the courtyard, telling us all what real life was like. There was no glamour, no glitz, no 'how fly am I' bravado. Illmatic was, simply, ill.

Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers), to me, appropriately preceded Illmatic in that it brought a different lyrical approach than what Hip-Hop had been known for up to the point of its release. It encompassed what pretty much every person growing up in the 'hood loved. Above all else, the kung-fu flick overlay the RZA crafted resonated with everyone. The personas that each Clansman embodied resonated with the comic book heroes their listeners grew up cherishing, way before they took on monikers such as Marvel Comics heroes Johnny Blaze a.k.a Ghost Rider and Tony Starks' Iron Man. Hailing from Staten Island, a world of it's own across from the more glamorized island of Manhattan, they tapped into a culture that was theirs and theirs only. That album introduced listeners to a new type of slang, steeped in 5 Percent and Nation of Islam teachings. Many of Wu-Tang's early fans didn't realize that when Raekwon would say "Aye yo, god!" or when Ghostface would say "Yo, sun!" that these were references to the spiritual teaching that they all were influenced by. This wasn't by design, yet it became a trademark of a group who set out from the jump to dominate the landscape of the culture at that time. By the time Nas' released his project, listeners already knew change was on the horizon. Today, Wu-Tang is synonymous with real Hip-Hop with a cult following that rivals that of any other group in music history and has no contemporaries in Hip-Hop. Wu-Tang, apparently, really is forever.

But what makes these two albums great, to me at least, is their timelessness. Put Illmatic up against any and every solo hip hop release since its debut in 1994 and it holds up. Jay Z dropped a classic debut with Reasonable Doubt, but it's heavily influenced by Nas' initial opus (see 'Dead Presidents', for example). Even Nas himself has been unable to duplicate the fanfare and reverence Illmatic spawned, the closest being his 2001 release of Stillmatic, but that was due more to his long awaited response to Jay Z's calling him out and starting one of the more memorable beefs in Hip-Hop history. Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) really has no rival in that its release was a calculated move by the group to introduce nine very different artists at the same time to set each member up for individual success later. As a group, they were a united front that could not be matched and would never be matched. Many individual, already accomplished, MC's tried to imitate what RZA and Wu-Tang did, but it was often a well established artist like Busta Rhymes, Fat Joe or Ludacris trying to use his name to get his crew on. Wu-Tang used their collective name to negotiate deals after the world knew who they were and what each MC could do. Again, no other debut releases have been so instrumental in forming not only the landscape for the culture, but defining it as well. Any MC that is worth anything these days will tell you that Nas and Wu-Tang influenced their music in some way. Wu-Tang also picked up where Naughty by Nature left of as far as marketing and branding with Wu-Wear, paving the way for brands such as Sean John and Rocawear to reach the heights they have attained today. While Wu-Wear never achieved what these brands did as far as notoriety on the business side, RZA consistently kept the Wu-Tang brand relevant and now has seen resurgence in brand recognition due to the groups cult following. 

Both of these albums had an initial impact that some may say wasn't immediately realized. I disagree with that sentiment but I understand that the true worth of anything valuable usually isn't appreciated for what it is right away. For me it wasn't until Hip-Hop music started to take a turn for more diluted 'pop-rap' that I grew to appreciate the quality of these albums and the artists behind them. That era represents to me what early Jazz and Blues represents to music lovers who remember Miles Davis at his peak or Charlie Parker, Muddy Waters, Billie Holiday or Nina Simone, just to name a few of my personal favorites. My father talks about these artists like I talk about Nas and Wu-Tang. They are revered because they represent something that doesn't get lost with time. 20 years later, I still find myself 'chasing the dragon' as it were, looking for something that can make me feel like I did when I heard these Hip-Hop legends  for the first time. Sadly, the only time I feel that is when I'm listening to their albums again and again. Nas' latest release Life is Good brought back some of those old feelings. While Wu-Tang, as solo artists and as a collective, are finding trouble as of late trying to recapture their old glory days on wax, their impact is still felt when they perform at events such as Coachella and The annual Rock the Bells concerts. The Wu-Tang logo is one of the more recognizable images of this generation and this is evident every time I wear one of my Wu t-shirts, buttons or wooden beaded necklaces. When people who typically have never listened to a rap song but recognize the symbol of the greatest rap group ever, there is no denying their place in society, let alone in Hip-Hop culture. So here's to Illmatic and Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers), 20 years later. Ya'll never sounded so good!!!

Donald Sterling and the Race Issue in Professional Sports

It took me some time to figure out exactly what I wanted to say regarding the Donald Sterling issue that broke last week. A lot has developed since then. Clippers players along with players from around the league actually considered boycotting and not playing their respective playoff basketball games in protest. The woman in the center of this scandal, V. Stiviano, claimed that it was never her intent to hurt Sterling and that it was not her that released the audio tapes containing his comments. Adam Silver, the new NBA commissioner, placed a lifetime ban on Sterling from any association with the team and fined him a reported $2.5 million in an effort to force him to sell the basketball franchise. The NBA recently appointed a league representative to serve as CEO in the interim, much like they did during the time when the New Orleans franchise was up for sale. During that time span, I've talked to a number of people regarding this topic and have heard many different persepectives. The common thread in all the conversations that I had was that everyone pretty much agreed that Donald Sterling no longer has a place in owning an NBA team and that this was a long time coming.

But the interesting thing is a lot of people feel like the issue was blown up in such a way that it was somehow unfair to Sterling. His statements were made in the privacy of his property, were illegally recorded (in the state of California it is illegal to record someone without their knowledge) and V. Stiviano is currently involved in a lawsuit in which Donald Sterling's wife, Rochelle, claims that Stiviano embezzled over $1 million from her husband. It was just recently reported that Sterling has been battling prostate cancer. Mark Cuban, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, though critical of Sterling's remarks, said that trying to force the embattled owner to sell over what was his own personal views was a 'slippery slope'. Others relegated the recorded comments as the ramblings of an old man who was expressing his frustrations with his 20 something 'alleged' girlfriend. Jason Whitlock, a Black writer for ESPN.com, criticized the media response and the response of the NBA and the Black community, characterizing the reaction as 'agenda fueled'. Whitlock went on to say that 'the culture of white supremacy created Donald Sterling' and that the comments he made regarding that concept, (saying "I don't want to change the culture because I can't, it's too big") was his lone moment of clarity. He went on to say this:

          "Much of what Sterling said on the tape is a rambling mess that can be interpreted many ways by sophisticated, mature and objective ears. To my ears, he doesn't care that his mistress has black friends. He doesn't care if she has sexual relationships with black men. He's married. They're not in a monogamous relationship. He simply does not want her extracurricular activities, particularly when they might involve black men, flaunted at his basketball games or all over Instagram."

Mr. Whitlock is entitled to his opinion and his "sophisticated, mature and objective ears" as he put it, as is every other person in the world. While I appreciate his viewpoint on the matter, I think it is terribly misguided. According to the transcripts of the recorded conversation, it is very obvious that he did care that Stiviano was associating with Black men. He said, when Stiviano asked whether or not it was right to treat Black as less than white, that "we don't evaluate what's right and wrong. We live in a society. We live in a culture. We live within that culture." He also stated that Stiviano could "sleep with them. You can bring them in, you can do whatever you want. The little I ask you is ... not to bring them to my games." He also expressed his displeasure with her posting pics of herself and other Black players (most notably, Magic Johnson) on social media, such as she did on Instagram. If he didn't care that these people were Black, he wouldn't have made it a point to single them out when expressing his frustrations with her.

Anyone who has heard of Donald Sterling before the news of this incident broke aren't suprised by his views. When David Stern was commissioner, he dealt with a number of incidents with Sterling that usally involved race in some shape, form or fashion. Stern opted not to bring any type of disciplinary action down on the owner, for whatever reason. But in today's NBA, billions of potential dollars from fans and sponsors are at stake. Players like Chris Paul and Blake Griffin have a lot more control over where they can choose to play. The league is made up of roughly 85% Black players, with more Black coaches and team executives than the previous generation. And its superstar athletes, like LeBron James, are more vocal when it comes to social issues than former players like, say, Michael Jordan, was. We saw that when the Trayvon Martin incident happened and we saw it again in reaction to Sterling's comments.

I'll agree with Jason Whitlock on the point that, yes, the media got a hold of this and ran with it. That's what the media does with hot button topics such as this one. Yes, Donald Sterling was set up by Ms. Stiviano and whoever else was involved. But should those facts mitigate a neccessary response from the public and the players and coaches who play, not just for the Clippers, but for every other team in the NBA, NFL, MLB and other professional sports? Certainly not! I feel the reaction was exactly what it should have been. The Clippers' players felt it necessary to stage a silent protest before their road playoff game against the Golden State Warriors by shedding their warm up tops that displayed the Clippers logo. They had discussed boycotting the next game, along with players from the other playoff teams, if the league wasn't swift in their decision to discipline Sterling. Was this action necessary? Was it right? Yes, and yes! Was it an overreaction? Misplaced? No and no! The actions of the league and the players put all the other owners on notice that the players have a lot more control in the NBA than some may admit and that they can shut the league down at any moment. The owners have this ability and we have seen it done many times in the form of lockouts over labor negotiations. Donald Sterling isn't the only owner in the league who feels the way he does about the players who are millionaires due to the amount of money the team owners pay them. Remember Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert's and Cleveland fans response to LeBron James' departure to Miami? It reminded me of a slave master calling out a runaway slave and the fans burning James' jersey in effigy was brought back images of obvious historical reference. These players still work for a living and they have a union to represent them. They have a right to voice their displeasure when they feel like something is wrong and this issue is very wrong. An owner who despises Black people has no business running a business, company or team that is made up primarily of the people he hates. Is hate the right word? Absolutely! If Donald Sterling didn't hate Black people, he wouldn't have made the comments that ended up on tape. He admitted to Adam Silver that is was him on the tape. He told an interviewer that his only regret was that he didn't "pay her off", referring to Stiviano. Sterling has not apologized for his comments because he stands by them. And while he is entitled to his views, privately stated or otherwise, he should be held accountable for them when those comments and views are made public, mainly because if the position he holds, regardless of how hose comments were found out. Kareem Adul Jabbar has said that he hopes those who illegally recorded Sterling goes to jail, while remaing critical of the comments that were made. If those idividuals are held responsible for that, then so be it. But just like any other owner of a franchise, whether it be an NBA team or a McDonalds, there are standards that franchise owners and other inidividuals in similar positions are held to because they are in the public eye. The bottom line is the bottom line; money, billions of dollars worth of it. The NBA has to protect it's brand, if not it's players alone. So Adam Silver not only did the right thing, he did the only thing he could to do. He came down hard on an owner with a history of racial intolerance. It was time

The public reaction was appropriate as well. Imagine if when Rosa Parks made her statement on the bus that day in Montgomery, Alabama, that the following morning no one boycotted, because they didn't want to be viewed as 'agenda driven'? Imagine if the abolitionists like Fredrick Douglas chose not to speak on slavery because he didn't want those who supported his ideals to be viewed as mob ruled. Imagine if slaves felt, as Jason Whitlock wrote of Sterling, that their masters were "victims of white supremacy" and that if they fought against their oppressors that the slave masters would go from villains to martyrs? Imagine that and then imagine us still picking cotton because this is the culture that is to big to be changed. Black Americans have to react right away when faced with these types of issues because if not, we are accepting the actions of those who view us as beneath them. We are accepting those white people in positions of power still having the "slave master" mentality and accepting the slave mentality that some Blacks still have. If it were not for the reaction of Black people when faced with incidents such as this, or with the Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis' trails, or with the outright disrespect and racist feelings our Black president faces as he tries to bring our country back from the economic disaster that George W. Bush left behind, we wouldn't even be having the conversations we've had over the past week regarding Donald Sterling. It wouldn't be news. It would be the norm and we'd only have ourselves to blame for it. Yes, I agree that other topics such as economic equality, voters rights, unemployment, the violence that our Black inner cities are subject to, family values, etc. should be met with the same furor as the topics that the media views as sexy or ratings grabbers. But that doesn't mean that the reaction to issues that involve millionare Black athletes versus billionaire white owners deserve any less attention. In fact, these type of situations reminds us that no matter where a Black person is in society, whether they be rich or poor, President or constituent, millionaire athlete or working class fan, we are still viewed one way and one way only by a large portion of white America. I don't need to spell it out, do I?